In this Self -Assessment it discuss the how this class has changed my understanding of Scientific Writing as a whole and the significant skills that really stood out to me during the course. 

 

Self-Assessment

In writing for the sciences there are a select genre of scientific papers. These are the Informative, Position, Position Paper, and Critical Research paper. The informative research paper is geared more towards informing an audience about specific scientific topics being investigated. The audience of these paper can vary form people specific in that field (experts), as well as a more general audience. The way that these types of papers can be classified is mainly by the type of language, as well as the way they present the information in writing. They may either take an active type of voice of a more narrative voice. There is the position paper’s purpose is to draw attention on the type of topic that may be researched. It gives a type view on how such a topic has been of a concern as well as showing valid information that provide support for the topic. It is more geared to the individuals that may be important in bring and maintaining a research politically, socially, or financially. The significance of a research proposal is to give your audience a synopsis of the research at hand as well as to just to give information on what makes the study significant. This is tied a body of individuals again, but sometimes more geared to experts in the field and backers that may heavily influence the direction of the experiment. Lastly there is the research paper that is there to thoroughly explain the research being done. From the beginning from the abstract, introduction, methods, results/ discussion and conclusion, it must revolve around the study that is being experimented on. This is usually for the experts in the field as it provides the raw work that went in conducing the ideas in the research proposal.

In scientific writing there is specific techniques that are used in preparing and writing in the science genres. Some of the strategies that was used in order to maintain accuracy in these genres is thought a vigorous use of checks and peer reviews from the scientific community. When a study is being published it first need to be supplemented from other data that has been gathered in the scientific community. This includes only getting sources from reliable journals and articles, conducting experiments on multiple samples that will represent a given population, and studies being conducted from reputable scientist that have prior experience in their field. The evaluation of research methods come from identifying a problem that needs to be addressed in the scientific community. Such problems might not actually be major problems per se but rather gaps and loose ends in the body of scientific knowledge that needs attention thought the use of observation and experimentation. The way on how these methods are evaluated for accuracy is again though the use of peer review among other scientist as well as observing nature in how specific pathways can be simulated in lavatories to solve specific answers. When introducing research problems, they are done though early analysis and planning of the research that is going on in hand. These problems may need additional minds to resolve those problems, or the use of isolating the problems and forming procedures to negate such problems from altering results in the experiment. Science and funding are essential ingredients in experiments being carried out to fruition. For funding for research to happen their need to be a need and a net gain from performing such research and such need may result in researchers to change their methods of research an that may change the research outcome. That is why it is important for researchers and experts to be well rounding in the type of information that is available. Such opposing viewpoint may strengthen the validity of research topic as it will address specific criticisms that may otherwise weaken any support for performing the research. This is where a research proposal becomes of importance as it summarizes the main points in the experiment and will most likely consider any problems that might be faced in the experiment. It will also address that it will focus on evaluating such opposing viewpoints as its main motivation for the research to proceed.

In scientific writing there is also a relationship that is built between the primary and secondary audiences, science genres, and scientific writers. Personally, it was done thought the use of a narrative and active voice. When addressing the primary audience, the active voice was used is to detail the information for the audience that had more of a background on the information being presented. While on the other hand a more narrative voice was used to promote fluidly and to ensure that the audience understands. This contract is most vivid in the two papers “The Problem with Cloning” and the Research Paper. In the “Problem with Cloning” a more narrative approach was used to make it more relatable to the audience that are not so education on the Scientifics of cloning. On the other hand, the research paper was crafted for a more specific group of people that is more knowledgeable about plants and genetic editing. The strategies that I use to make the topics easier for people to understand was putting hard concepts and words into simpler and easier bite-sized chunks of information. Thier was also the use of simpler terms that was more recognized by a more general audience and the use of in a of illustrations to give a visual representation of the data presented, allowing for the data to be compared easier and more fluently. Lastly there is the referring to other scientist work to provide a source in which readers can get more information on a more specialized study.

Though scientific writing has a couple of referrals and authors, papers must go through multiple peer-reviews in order to ensure accuracy in knowledge and accurate scientific analysis was used for experiments to be validated. This was seen in a smaller scale by using peer-reviews, blackboard post and the class group work that was assigned in class. Here it allowed for mistakes to be highlighted by other fellow classmates and as a result promoted an atmosphere of self-improvement and teaching. It also allowed to see a diverse crowd of writing which is great, but it makes it more benefited to emphasize the importance of sticking to the formats, so all righting is done symmetrically.

While most scientific writing does not need to involve visual imagery, its addition only improves the understanding of the topic. It helps the reader to make sense of what objects are being used in the experiment and helps for the audience to “see” what tools and observations noticed to supplement the data and written experiences in the report. Personally, in the essay I performed the images helped to set the images that should be related to the experiment. It helps the reader to anchor their visual images to the ones associated to the experiment or report, hopefully removing and discrepancies that may arise from wrong mental pictures that may not relate to the idea of the writing.

Sources are one of the most important qualities of scientific papers. Everything that is stated in the paper must be backed up by trusted and reliable sources no matter how minimal a fact might be. Unchecked sources will lead to inconsistencies and false knowledge that may be detrimental especially if others use such research as truth. Some databases that sources that was used personally was from colleges and universities that have visual libraries that information can be access proven to be peer reviewed from others. Other sources used was scientific studies endorsed by other important scientific figures and reassured backed by experienced bodies such as government or private institutions. I find it easier to use the virtual libraries as more often than not they have the information that I desire as well as the libraries search engine providing other articles that are similar to the research that I was conducting and to identify new ways of thinking and data that will supplement my own. While peer-reviewed studies may be analyzed from experts in the scientific community, it does not mean the information is without errors. Such data, again , has to be backed up by others either though financial or political entities and these entities can use their influence to tamper or provide other data that may seem to provide info that may be in support of the providing body. That is why it is important to use multiple sources in order to maintain consistent information among ideas.

In more informative topics it has more of a leeway in providing personal opinions from the author. However, such viewpoints must be brought up in such a way it does not interfere with information at hand and provide a window were bias can be spotted. This can be done by referring viewpoints that my conflict with the ideals of the authors idea’s and then address them in a latter paragraph. This technique was done in one of my previous essays dealing with cloning. It was stated how there may be problems with cloning and the issues it may have in the foreseeable future. My position was I was in favor in cloning, however that did not stop me from discussing the problems that may be had with cloning. Later in the next paragraph I addresses such issues and brought up how such claims may be faulty and replaced such explanations with the ideas of my own.

Though it would be helpful that all experiments were done with efficiency in mind that might not be the case with every experiment. It may seem like a credible design on the surface there are some fundamental templates in a paper that if absent may jeopardize the validly of a paper. Some identifiers are if the sample size is too small, or the data did not address the question correctly and/or accurately. Other issues may be but are not limited to methods not explained correctly or the data being inaccurate or outdated. It is important when deciphering difficult sources that one view the abstract first to see if it has the information that is needed for the experiment. If the experiment deviates in important parts or does not answer the question fully it may need different sources or more examination of the source. It’s also beneficial that sources require other sources in order to prove to itself its credibility. Looking though the citations it will help in finding sources to build up sources needed to build up one’s own paper. It is also helpful to use the methods to support the research argument or thesis. An example of this method is when the gene responsible for the creation of suberin was examined in the microarray. The knowledge that it was already known what gene was responsible for the production was significant in supporting thesis that stated that suberin can be produced in mass using genetic engineering.

Overall after completing this I can say that my perceptions of writing have evolved in the most basic of levels. Now I know the importance of backing up sources with former knowledge from other researchers. I also learned that the thesis that is proposed is not fixed and is consistently changing based on the amount of knowledge that will be gained on the subject. This also taught me that the main purpose for researchers for such their rudimentary academic vernacular is not because they are trying to isolate people from thier literature but rather helps other scientist that are experts in the field to focus more on the experiment and results it yield rather than the individuals.